Ask A Genius 1326: Informational Cosmology, Entropy, and the Future of the Universe
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/29
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Could you use entropy in informational cosmology as something akin to a universal clock?
Rick Rosner: You can. In Big Bang cosmology, entropy can be interpreted as a clock. However, both Big Bang cosmology and the laws of thermodynamics may fundamentally misunderstand how entropy and thermodynamics behave on tiny scales and over short periods.
Yesterday, I briefly mentioned unitary theories of gravitation and entropy…
When I say unitary, I mean something comparable to what has historically been referred to as the unified field theory—what Einstein was after. Many people have tried to develop a theory that explains why we have the fundamental forces we do, how they interact, and how they emerge from the structure and dynamics of spacetime.
So when I say unitary theory, I mean a framework that explains how these things work—not just locally, but when incorporated into a model of the entire universe.
For instance, gravitation: We see its local effects everywhere, but it acts as a scale regulator. We know from general relativity that gravitation curves space. But even though general relativity’s equations extend across the entire universe, they’re primarily based on local observations.
Yes, the Big Bang and the observation of the Hubble shift are universe-wide observations. But there’s still no unified or unitary explanation for why gravity behaves locally the way it does.
I believe gravitation is an effect of changes in the scale of space based on the information contained within it—that space itself is a manifestation of the distribution of information across the universe. The dynamics of how space adjusts to account for changes in information distribution generate gravity.
Similarly, barring massive, sudden information losses, the total amount of information in the universe should remain roughly the same over vast periods.
So I guess you could argue—wait, I’m going to contradict myself here—but I’ll stick with it. Well… there are mechanisms.
Jacobsen: To quote the great Adam Sandler: “T-t-t-t-t-today, Junior!” [Laughing]
Rosner: Mechanisms that essentially tuck entropy away… Let me put it this way. I was talking with some other people today about the waste heat problem. Some people are concerned that, as we move into a computational civilization—a computational economy—with AI embedded in everything and massive calculations constantly, all that computation will generate waste heat.
How are we going to get rid of it? We already generate a ton of heat by burning fossil fuels. We will inevitably generate even more heat because of all the computation we’re doing. That could mean we must move computation off Earth’s surface or figure out how to pipe that heat away from the planet. I don’t freaking know.
But that’s a thermodynamic issue we’re already facing—and we will continue to face it in the future. It’s also a dilemma within the Big Bang universe model, where the universe ultimately runs out of usable energy. It runs out of temperature gradients to exploit. You can’t do anything once the entire universe is at the same temperature—just this lukewarm homogeneity. That’s when you’ve lost all exploitable differences in energy.
Right? That’s the heat death of the universe.
But I say—well, I contend—that there are places to tuck entropy away, to reduce the universe’s entropy locally. That way, the universe doesn’t become uniformly lukewarm. It continues to contain roughly the same amount of information. Or at least, it never truly reaches that heat-death endpoint. That entire model might be a flawed extrapolation based on local, closed systems observations.
Jacobsen: Do we know the fundamental distinction between information and entropy in an informational cosmology (IC) framework, or are we still in a phase of metaphysical hand-waving because we have not yet pinned down physical law well enough to make a firm distinction?
Rosner: Mostly the latter. But once you have a unitary theory—a unified theory of how things like entropy, information, and gravitation work across the entire universe, from moment to moment, from epoch to epoch—then that stuff moves from metaphysics to actual freaking physics. You can assign “metaphysics” to the hand-waving phase and call an actual working theory physics.
Jacobsen: There’s also the premise in the physics of effective theories. If we use effective theories to describe, say, the statistical dynamics of a cloud of gas, or clouds, or rain, or the Brownian motion of particles in the ocean as a whole, then could we apply similar reasoning to informational dynamics—systems in the universe, worldlines, or volumes in spacetime?
Rosner: Yes. Here’s what I’m thinking—which may not completely align with your thinking—but even though the hand-wavy stuff verges on metaphysics rather than physics, you can still make testable predictions. And if you can make testable predictions from it, then it’s fucking physics. So it’s hand-wavy physics—not hand-wavy metaphysics.
That’s progress.
If IC—Informational Cosmology—says the universe is old as fuck, then you can test that contention by looking for stuff in the universe that appears older than the current calculated age of the universe. That would imply that the universe’s age is not an absolute clock but a measure of the universe’s information content.
Jacobsen: If the universe is old as fuck, how would it be possible, in theory, to double the lifespan of the universe in some information-theoretic way? To make the universe not just “one fuck” long but “two fucks” long?
Rosner: Yes. And one of the questions we could get to is—if it’s two fucks long, people should care more. So, we don’t fully know what information is about the universe itself. We know some of the mechanisms by which information operates within the universe. For example, photons and neutrinos—long-distance particles—lose energy as they travel vast distances due to the curvature of space. We know that process generates information. We just fucking know it. We know it for good reasons. And of all IC’s claims, I’ll defend most fiercely.
Where are we going with this?
Jacobsen: The extent of the universe, information dynamics, effective theories. Oh, right—something philosophical.
Rosner: What we don’t know is whether the affairs of evolved beings within the universe ever impact the informational dynamics of the universe itself.
You could express this in science-fictional terms. We know galaxies run out of energy and go dark. Under IC, we think there are mechanisms to relightgalaxies. Would a civilization of sufficient development and age be able to interfere with the collapse of entire galaxies—and save themselves by saving a galaxy? Maybe by interacting with the massive black hole at the center?
Is there anything the occupants of a universe can do to change the dynamics of the universe?
And does this kind of interference—this fiddling with the universe’s structure—have anything to do with increasing its information content?
That’s some far-fetched shit, but it’s the kind of thing that may eventually be worth analyzing seriously.
We know that the universe, under IC, increases in information over time. But does that increase in information include the extreme increases in local order that we see in the evolution of life and then in the emergence of complex technology?
Does that kind of localized information—relevant mostly on Earth right now—have any broader role? Could the affairs of evolved civilizations eventually affect the distribution of information in the universe?
Jacobsen: Tomorrow, we can cover information and entropy more directly.
Well, I don’t know the exact term—regression curve. Maybe like a developmental entropy-information curve over the lifespan of a universe?
That would be interesting. There would probably be a “map” of those in the same way you’d have in Wolfram’s computational universe of mathematics, where you can flip through a deck of different system setups. You’d have a deckof various types of representations of information and entropy. I’m making an assumption here—but I see information and entropy as two sides of the same coin when representing the universe.
Rosner: I want to cover that tomorrow now. I don’t know. I’ll have to think about it.
Jacobsen: Tomorrow.
Rosner: Talk to you then. Thank you.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 